Magistrate Cannot Direct a Superior Officer to Register FIR: Delhi High Court Upholds ASJ's Order, Dismisses Petitions

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that a Magistrate, while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), cannot direct a superior police officer, such as the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), to register an FIR or oversee an investigation. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in a judgment pronounced on January 28, 2025, upheld the Additional Sessions Judge’s (ASJ) order dated July 17, 2013, setting aside the Magistrate’s direction and reaffirming that the correct legal course was to proceed under Section 200 CrPC instead.

"Magistrate Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 156(3) CrPC": High Court Clarifies Legal Position

The case arose from petitions filed by Harmeet Singh, who challenged the ASJ’s order that had quashed a Metropolitan Magistrate’s direction to the DCP (East) Delhi to register an FIR and hand over the investigation to the District Investigation Unit (DIU). The petitioner alleged that police officers had colluded with private individuals in a property dispute, unlawfully entered his premises, and failed to take action against the accused despite clear evidence of wrongdoing.

The High Court, however, observed that the Magistrate’s order was beyond the scope of Section 156(3) CrPC, which only empowers a Magistrate to direct the officer in charge of a police station (SHO) to register an FIR, not a superior officer like a DCP. The Court emphasized: “When a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 156(3), he can only direct an officer in charge of a police station to conduct such investigation and not a superior police officer.”

"No Special Evidence Warranting FIR": High Court Emphasizes Alternative Remedies

The Court further ruled that the petitioner failed to present any special evidence necessitating an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. Instead, it held that the appropriate legal recourse was under Section 200 CrPC, where the Magistrate could take cognizance of the complaint and decide whether to issue summons or initiate an inquiry.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in CBI v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 3 SCC 333, the Court reiterated that a Magistrate cannot bypass statutory procedures and must assess whether an investigation is truly required before directing the police to register an FIR. The Court noted: “A Magistrate should only invoke Section 156(3) CrPC if the nature of allegations demands police intervention for gathering evidence that the complainant cannot procure independently.”

"Abuse of Criminal Process to Settle Civil Dispute": High Court Rejects Petitioner’s Claims

The Court also observed that the dispute at hand involved property ownership and was already pending before a Civil Court. It strongly criticized the petitioner for attempting to use criminal proceedings to pressurize the police and private respondents, stating:

“The filing of a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC in this case appears to be nothing more than an attempt to bring undue pressure on the police officials and the accused.”

The judgment reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle private disputes, particularly when a case involves civil property rights.

"Inherent Powers Must Be Used Sparingly": High Court Declines to Quash ASJ's Order

Dismissing the petitions, the Court also refused to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), cautioning that such powers must be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It held that the ASJ’s order was legally sound and did not warrant interference.

“This Court does not find any reason to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, as no illegality or miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated.”

Upholding the ASJ’s order dated July 17, 2013, the High Court dismissed the petitions and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed under Section 200 CrPC, rather than ordering an FIR. This ruling serves as an important precedent, reaffirming that:

• A Magistrate cannot direct a superior police officer to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.

• Complaints lacking special evidence warranting police intervention should be dealt with under Section 200 CrPC.

• Criminal law cannot be misused to pressurize police officials in civil disputes.

The High Court’s inherent powers must be used sparingly, only to prevent abuse of process or a miscarriage of justice.

By dismissing the petitions, the Delhi High Court has once again upheld judicial discipline and procedural integrity, preventing an overreach of magisterial powers while ensuring that criminal law is not misused as a tool for harassment in civil matters.

Date of Decision: 28/01/2025